Thanks of your note. I agree and would also welcome an overall strategy focused on a defined objective. It could help sort out our divergent positions.

Right now I suspect our objective is to stay alive. Not a lot to be inspired by.

At a minimum, if one believes that we need more parking to attract some larger company, where will those extra spaces come from if the library lot structure (approx. 462 net new spaces) is presumably being built to replace spaces that will be lost elsewhere? I’d really welcome a forthright explanation of the thinking rather than the circular and incomplete rationalizations I’ve been hearing for a couple years.

Sorry about the “fact” ambiguity. I work in human information processing and may overuse my perspective.

I want to stress that I am not criticizing your logic. It is as legitimate as is mine. Our divergence centers on the input we are willing to accept as relevant.

I believe that you put reliance on “hard facts.” Then you analytically extend those facts into the future to arrive at your position. This positions you to make compelling, fact based arguments. And your logic works as long as nothing unexpected intervenes. This is the kind of thinking process that is favored in the hard sciences. Not a bad provenience.

I, on the other hand, accept more nebulous possibilities as legitimate input. For example, I know of no large employer looking to relocate to Ann Arbor. But I believe that they are out there somewhere. I’m willing to bet that if we make it easy for them to relocate, the likelihood is that one or more of them will. It’s kind of a “if you build it, they will come” strategy.

The “future facts” element centers on the outcome of our divergent perspectives. In pursuing your position you will create an environment that favors certain kinds of activity and discourages others.

For example, it is likely that your posture will create a nice local world. Pollution is lowered and congestion is eased. Your “hard data” position makes that future reasonably predictable.

My more probabilistic (some might say wishful) position carries less certainty on what those “future facts” will be. But it broadens the range of possibilities. That “someone” who might relocate to Ann Arbor could be a new Microsoft or Procter and Gamble. If that were to happen the well-being of Ann Arbor and the State of Michigan could be positively influenced in a big way (at least if you value employment opportunities).

To me, the relatively certain but modest benefits that your position offers are less valuable than the uncertain but potentially high value opportunities of my position. I believe that Ann Arbor is a jewel that can attract the kind of firms that can change the world. My strategy creates the “future facts” that increase the odds that we’ll stumble on such a firm.

You are likely to assign lower odds that my strategy will work than I will. My input “facts” are uncertain, ill defined and “squishy.” But that is what makes a “ball game.” Let’s play!

PS: I’m speculating about your evaluative processes based on your comments. I could be wrong. The only way to tell is to measure them. But that is a bit out of range for a “Reader’s Comment” exchange.

The only parking that clearly has the potential for generating excess revenue (beyond paying for the operation and maintenance of the parking system) is that which already exists. New parking will take decades (four or more) to pay off construction and related costs and must do so at high usage levels. The current system stands a chance of breaking even in coming years. The cost of this new structure at a time after the peak in downtown parking demand could jeopardize that potential. Then what do we do? Remove (more) spaces? Raise the rates (and thus decrease demand)?

By the way, anyone know what the fixed-price bid for the new structure came in at?

As for new vehicles, check out the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles that the Clinton administration pumped a ton of public money into for next to no public benefit. I read recently that current average mpg is no higher than when the first cars were made a century ago. And, of course, Ivan Illich calculated that American car drivers get the equivalent of less than 5 mph. My prediction is that the vehicle of the future will be powered by carbohydrates and will move us at higher net speeds than that. :-)

The Brown Block has no scheduled projects and given the current state of things, is not likely to in the future. (I’m basing this in part on an interview I did about 3 years ago, when the market was hotter, but nothing contemplated then.) Yes, they have a lease with the city that can be abrogated when a development is scheduled, but no need to hold your breath.

I gather that the First and William spaces will be lost once the city receives funding for environmental amelioration so that it can be made into a park. I’m not holding my breath on that one either. Wonder whether an application has been made yet?

I don’t know anything about the lost street spaces, though as Steve mentioned, new ones are being added.

All this points to the need for a good accounting of spaces. The Nelson-Nygaard study likely has one buried in its report appendixes. Speculation about when all those parking spaces will actually be lost depends on—the future.

With regard to the cost of the Google spaces, you (Gale Logan) are correct that the cost to the city will vary depending on how many spaces Google is actually using. The number promised (free) by the city was 400. Since there were no new spaces to accommodate this, the city committed to pay the DDA the amount that a permit holder would have paid for existing spaces. McKinley made part of the spaces they have reserved at the Liberty Square available. However, when I did my research for the May blog entry, I was told by the DDA that they are unable to specify how many of those are actually being used by Google. I didn’t bother to try to penetrate the depths of the city’s financial accounting to get an instantaneously accurate figure.

Here is, however, how it got budgeted (June 2007 memo from Tom Crawford):

“The present value of estimated costs to pay for parking for up to 400 spaces monthly through December 2010 is $2,039,017.
…
City Administration recommends amendment of the current adopted FY07 budget to provide for a transfer of $2,180,000 from the General Fund to the new Economic Development Fund and amendment of adopted FY08 budget to appropriate $600,000 in the Economic Development Funds, in order to cover the next fiscal year’s maximum obligation for the Google parking agreement.”

Assuming that this took place, the city did indeed commit $2 million (transferred from the General Fund!) for the Google parking permits. (This does not cover the cost of replacing those spaces, lost to other business users; maybe McKinley had enough leeway to take care of that.)

Obviously, we differ on the weight that should be given to each of these factors (present vs future facts). Neither of us right or wrong. But the choice will lead to very a different future for Ann Arbor.

Gale–You last paragraph says it all. Both efforts merit pursuit. But, I would point out that luring major employers to town would generate tax revenues. In fact, even more shoppers would result in tax revenue in addition to the parking revenue itself.

Public transportation initiatives can be expected to be break-even at best. Nobody anywhere makes money on it (a current fact?). Seems to me that a bit more focus should be given to the parking. At least it stands a chance of putting money in the city coffers. Investing in break even ventures seems less than wise.

The city has lost or will soon lose 700 spaces downtown plus the two older structures you mention are old and won’t last forever.

From information I obtained from my council member many months ago and reading here, the major reasons new parking is needed are the loss of (170) street spaces that has already occurred over time, the demolition of the 1st and Washington structure (net 150+? I don’t know the exact number),turning the 1st and William surface lot into a park in the next few years, (120?) the expected loss of the Brown Block (180? spaces)when 1st & Martin builds on it (they notified the city of this some time back).

I fully agree with others that the new parking structure is needed to replace what has been lost and what will be lost. But new parking is needed to keep downtown vibrant.

You also say the city is paying 2 million for the Google parking, that was if Google used 400 spaces and as you note they are not. (But don’t ever miss an opportunity to dig at the city. Stick to the party line.) They are only paying for what Google is using, less than 2 million.

I don’t see how anyone can be surprised Google has not hired more in this economy. And like Google I don’t see how anyone can expect an up-and-coming company to locate downtown if there is no new parking in the pipeline when the townships will gladly allow surface lots.

David has it right, unless Obama and the transportation people around him are wrong. There will be a new generation of vehicles and people will be driving for a long time to come. There will also be trains and I for one can’t wait.

A positive thinker would say the city needs to simultaneously continue the current effort toward more transit and increase the parking downtown for when the economy picks up.

1. Need for parking downtown and its likely effects vis-a-vis downtown businesses; vs. the use of public transport
2. How we view the future and how that view affects decisions we make today.

Regarding #1: When Sabra Briere said that we would be losing parking spaces, she indicated that we would shut down Fourth and William and the Maynard structure. This was apparently based on the age of those structures. But the DDA only recently added a floor to Fourth and William, and the Maynard structure is an integral part of the State Street area and heavily used. It was also renovated recently by the DDA. I don’t know of specific information regarding their likely lifetimes, but I personally doubt they will be coming down soon.

I did a lengthy analysis of Google and the business/publicly funded parking issue on my blog earlier this year. Among other findings, I referenced an article on AnnArbor.com (August 2) that indicates that Google (local) has hired only 250 people, has undergone management changes, and refuses to discuss future hiring plans. That is with a city cost of $2 million a year to pay for their parking.

I share Steve’s frustration with the blithe dismissal of the transit to downtown concept. This has been discussed at length over the last several years and we have invested much in studies on it. There has been a pretty good public consensus that commuting into downtown (to work) by car is not the best option at many levels. We have a whole program (getDowntown) devoted to making the transit solution work. It is difficult to encompass all the effort and all the discussion on this subject in a comment thread. I’d suggest that some of the comments on this subject are not well researched and encourage you to look at the past discussions. (Sorry, I haven’t figured out how to do links on comments or I’d reference a couple.)

I’ll deal with the future – later.